Smithsonian Removes EV1 Exhibit

johnMG writes to mention a Seattle PI article on the Smithsonian's move to remove the EV1 electric sedan from display. From the article: "The upcoming film 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' questions why General Motors created the battery-powered vehicles and then crushed the program a few years later. The film opens June 30th. GM happens to be one of the Smithsonian's biggest contributors. But museum and GM officials say that had nothing to do with the removal of the EV1 from display."

Comments

"Crushed" sounds so much better than "Cancelled"

[SuperKendall]

Lots of things that people like are canned all the time because no-one buys them - and personally I'm not sure I would have wanted a world of all eletric cars when the time came to recycle the batteries...

The time will come when all electric cars will be more practical, but in the meantime do we have to be so sensationalistic when something we like vanishes?

Perhaps if there had been a cool movie about electric cars BEFORE they were cancelled we might still have them. If you really like something then now is the time to drum up support for it! Be an evangelist, not a mere consumer.

NAH! Of course it didn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

"GM happens to be one of the Smithsonian's biggest contributors. But museum and GM officials say that had nothing to do with the removal of the EV1 from display."

Also, the insistence on making electric vehicles look as unsexy and unstylish as possible was not a deliberate ploy intended to kill public interest in them. We all know that most people would just love the chance to be seen driving around in something which looks like a French milkvendors cart.

GM loves corn

[Original Replica]

GM is pushing "flex-fuel" over hybrids. Ethanol over electric cars. For GM to have this first commercial electric car and then lose the hybrid market is embarassing. But at least they have the good sense to put SUV's in their place: in a museum.

Re:GM loves corn

[ScrappyLaptop]

"GM is pushing "flex-fuel" over hybrids."

That's because there is this nasty little law that allows car makers to in effect grossly inflate the stated mpg of flex-fuel vehicles %20 over what they actually get. Many good selling vehicles (i.e., pickups) actually are flex-fuel, but the only way that you'd know it is from the VIN. You see, they don't actually *care* about you being able to burn flex-fuels; what they care about is artificially raising the fleet average fuel economy rating.

Cheat number two:

MTBE was added to gasoline as an "oxygenate" to make it burn cleaner. Only one company (arco?) was making it at the time and they lobbied heavily to make sure that the specs in the law pretty much spelled out that only MTBE would fit the bill, if you will excuse the pun. It gave them a six month lead on the market until other manufacturers could ramp up. Well, it turns out MTBE is really nasty stuff that gets into ground water, and causes the birth of three headed monkeys from otherwise normal canaries. And they had no idea. Oh, and Congress is working hard to make sure that you can't sue them. Anywhoo, now that it is acknowledged that MTBE is bad, new law has been constructed that pretty much guarantees that Ethanol will replace the previous 10% by volume oxygenate. Problem is, Ethanol gets something like 20% worse mileage than MTBU (Ethanol 76,000 btu/gallon, MTBE 93,500 btu/gallon, US gas 115,000 btu/gallon). Work out the math and you see that once again, the oil industry wins big time. Under the guise of "cleaner fuel, cleaner air, cleaner water", we are going to be filling up MORE often with MORE expensive gasoline that will create MORE pollution! Oh, and Ethanol might be worse for groundwater, as it is totally mixable in water and carries lots of other things from the gas with it. Can't smell it like you can MTBU, though, so you'll be drinking it for years before you realize it. Of course, the replacement of MTBU with Ethanol was enacted within a day or so of the Big Head Cheese giving a big "I understand the concerns of the simple folk" speech about how we are going to cut our reliance on foreign oil and clean the air and water by "doing things" with alternate energy. Same time that the alternate energy budget allocations were cut. Doublespeak at it's best...

Re:Who killed the electric car?

[Kaenneth]

I'm really torn, I like electric cars in principle, but as you say, lacking 'oompm' (power) is my reason not to get one. Along with statistics that show more powerful cars are less likly to get into accidents. but then, the only reason I have to think that they are weak is from what other people say in side comments like yours. Maybe their acceleration is better than gas powered cars. Maybe you own a gas station, and are telling lies to stay in business, maybe... YOU killed the electric car!

They need better ads, depicting them zooming along, speed of a dead dinosaur vs. speed of a lightning bolt... meanwhile, last I heard, people were selling Hybrids for more than they paid, and some delivery/shuttle fleets are getting them. Like with Natural Gas vehicles, they may be more economical if your business is willing to provide the infrastructure themselves.

Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[NotQuiteReal]

...personally I'm not sure I would have wanted a world of all eletric cars when the time came to recycle the batteries...

Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, an all-electric car would most likely be worse than one burning the fuel directly. I have never heard of a perfectly efficient method of transmitting electricty from where it was produced to where it was needed (e.g. charge up the car). Ergo, there would be a net increase in "environmental badness" to use the e-car vs what we have now.

All the fossil fuels that are economically reachable will be burned. Do you want them burned in nice epa-mandated catalytic converter equiped cars or some 3rd world 2-stroke putt-putt cars?

Either way we will eventually get to "the next thing" - I'd say let us use it up the way we are going now.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[maxume]

The situation simply isn't clear cut either way. Centralizing power generation allows you to spend more on efficiency and pollution controls, maybe even do CO2 sequesterization. Can you more than recover the transmission loss? Who knows.

The key issue is that the energy density and "recharge time" of gasoline make batteries look like toys. Batteries recycle pretty well, so that isn't that big of a deal.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[quanticle]

Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, an all-electric car would most likely be worse than one burning the fuel directly. I have never heard of a perfectly efficient method of transmitting electricty from where it was produced to where it was needed (e.g. charge up the car). Ergo, there would be a net increase in "environmental badness" to use the e-car vs what we have now.

Not necessarily. Your argument is only true if the electric power plant and the gasoline-powered car operate at the same efficiency. If the power plant is significantly more efficient than a gasoline engine, then it is quite possible for the electric car to be more environmentally friendly than the gasoline car, even with transmission losses.

Your argument also ignores the fact that its generally easier to implement and upgrade pollution controls on a few dozen power plants versus several million automobiles.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[Abcd1234]

Actually, the *real* reason to go electric (or hydrogen) is that it lets you leverage alternative energy sources, meaning more flexibility. In addition, the centralization makes it easy to upgrade existing plants with new technology. Not so easy with millions of little ICEs.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[TykeClone]

At which points why not dump the IC engine add some more batteries and go for 100% electric?

Winter. Have you ever driven in a vehicle for any length of time when the heater didn't work? When it was below 0F? I had an old blazer that was like that - the hearer fan didn't work below 32F. I don't drive that much so I never bothered to fix it, but one's feet certainly get cold when there's no heat to be had.

In an all-battery powered car, there's only one source of heat. Electric heat from the batteries. Running the heater will shorten your driving range. And if you're stuck in transit somewhere with no power (and no heat!) when it's cold out, you're dead.

Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars...

[NitsujTPU]

There is no real reason to go electric of hydrogen. In order for that to help the environment at all, you need to have the alternative power infastructure in place. The only stuff that you're going to do efficiently without trashing the environment at this point is nuclear, and that's been pretty much regulated and protested out of existence.

If anything, the best point at this point would be the possibility that your plant uses a domestically produced fuel, so we don't have to trash our economy any more handing our dough over to people who want to blow us up.

Anyway, it's a pointless argument, The video strikes me as a sensationalist look at a product that just failed. It's hard to sell people on cars that require special infastructure, perform poorly... and that Occam's Razor indicates are only minimally going to help the environment in the end... not that the majority of motorists care. The market is not thinking, "I can't wait to pass up that badass Corvette for a commensurately priced economy style vehicle that caps out at 55 and can't be filled up at a regular station. Sign me up!" The market is purchasing even larger SUVs, despite soaring gas prices. Do you think they care that the car promises to improve the environment?

Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[Alfred, Lord Tennyso]

The question is, why did they buy the SUV rather than the EV-1? At least in part, they liked the size, and felt that relatively cheap gas (remember the "gas glut"?) was worth the mileage.

But at least according to the film, more was at work than the market in that decision. They blame the oil companies for anti-market tactics like astroturf groups to oppose charging stations, as well as buying congressmen to give tax credits to SUV owners. (SUVs over 3 tons, most famously the Hummer, were treated as commercial vehicles, and given huge tax breaks. And non-enormous SUVs got to count their potential carrying capacity towards that 3 tons under a 2002 "economic stimulus package").

Oil companies also campaigned vigorously against emissions restrictions and higher CAFE standards. In market terms, those are attempts to monetize externalized expenses.

So the cards were stacked in favor of SUVs and against the electric car. Not by the market, but precisely counter to the market, when powerful companies get a larger say in regulations than consumers do.

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[geekoid]

"They blame the oil companies for anti-market tactics like astroturf groups to oppose charging stations,"

In CA there were charging station going up everywhere.

"as well as buying congressmen to give tax credits to SUV owners. (SUVs over 3 tons, most famously the Hummer, were treated as commercial vehicles, and given huge tax breaks. And non-enormous SUVs got to count their potential carrying capacity towards that 3 tons under a 2002 "economic stimulus package")."

It was a loophole in a bill to help farmers.

Also, the EV-1 was very expensive(30K, lease only), and had limited range, and it was imparatical with a family of more then 3. Or two with a dog.

There where far more SUV option then electric car options. I don't think people were ready to consider a car that was that small.

I lokoed at them, but the cost kept me away. They were loosing so much money in an attempt to be first to market. they might as well made the 15K.

No doubt the oil companies make moves against clean air.

One last thing, had the type of electric car been marketable, why aren't there anythings similiar? how come coutries like china? they would benefit greatly from electric cars, why aren't they used there?

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[protohiro1]

We can't seem to get over the not profitable == bad issue. Newsflash:transit is (almost)never profitable. The Paris Metro/RER system, for example, has cost many billions over the last century to build and more to operate. No one in Paris is running around demanding the system be dismantled because it is a money loser. People know that without it the city would fall apart. This is the take away from the EV1 story. We can't always count on the free market to solve out problems. Because sometimes are problems can't be solved profitably.

Oh, and do you think the car companies would have been able to make the money they did without the massive taxpayer investment in car transportation? By which I mean the interstate system, traffic lights, safety regulation, traffic cops, paving roads, yearly maintenance, etc, etc. Total cost to taxpayers in 2005 dollars since 1957? At least 5 trillion dollars by my hasty calculations.

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[protohiro1]

I DID and DO pay for it. The libertarian minded seem to forget that taxes aren't all just lit on fire. I (and all other taxpayers) spend a good amount of money maintaining the roads I drive on and building new ones. If we had waited for the car companies to build interstates we would still be driving on dirt between cities. We need to spend some tax dollars investing in the future of energy and transportation. Its going to cost some money to solve this problem, more than the private sector is willing to spend.

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[johnMG]

GM knew they could sell electric cars.

I think the point you're missing is this:

Electric vehicles are simple and inexpensive to design and build.

Way simpler than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. ICE's have to have many many moving parts working in sync to even run at all. There's even fluid dynamics involved for air, fuel, and lubricant flow. It's insanely complicated compared to an electric car which happens to consist of only 4 major parts:

• the electric motor,
• the charge controller,
• the power controller ("throttle"), and
• the batteries

That's it. Any other fancy features (like regenerative braking) are just gravy, and you don't need them for a simple functional vehicle.

Car companies could make an electric "VW Bug" type car in their sleep. Hobbyists have been making them in their garages for decades.

The fact of the matter is not that car companies can't make money on them, the fact is that they wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money on them as they do with ICE vehicles. Here's some reasons why:

1. Energy efficiency. All the extras that car companies like to change extra for (power windows, power doorlocks, automatic transmissions, big stereos, heated seats, etc.) become much less viable with small economical energy efficient vehicles. Instead of "features" they become things that reduce how many miles you can go on a charge.

2. Size. EV's tend to be fairly small. Car companies like to charge big money for big vehicles.

3. Parts. EV's are very reliable. We're used to driving vehicles around which have explosions going on inside their engines. This wears ICE's out fast. Electric motors last an very very long time with minimal maintenance. This means car companies will not make much money selling parts. Batteries, OTOH, do wear out. But they're dimensions are currently pretty standardized, and so you wouldn't have to go to the dealership to recycle them.

4. Lifetime. As mentioned, EV's last a very long time. Car companies like their customers to drive disposable cars, so they can be sold another car in a few years.

5. Oil. You can't discount the relationship that car companies almost assuredly have with oil companies. It's symbiotic. Do you think maybe GM has heavy investments in several oil companies? I'm sure they certainly do. And widespread EV sales would hammer oil company profits. Do you think maybe oil companies have large investments in automobile companies? Let's listen in on a possible future phone call:

Oil company exec: Hi. Say, all these EV's you're producing - we're really getting hit hard over here. 'Little help?

Car company exec: Yeah, we're doing pretty good with 'em. Folks really love 'em. So, we don't plan on not selling them any time soon.

Oil: Yeah, well, see,.. we were thinking, maybe then it would be a good idea if rearranged our corporate stock ownership portfolio a little... to realign our core ... [snip marketspeak].

Car: Whoa! Whoa there. Just a sec... you can't do that... If you did that, then [snip finance speak about lots of fire and brimstone showing up in the car company's checkbook]

Oil: Yes, actually. We can. [car company exec sweats profusely while oil company exec twirls phone cord on the other end and absently feeds fish in piranha tank]

Car: Say, look, um... we actually were just getting ready to discontinue our EV line anyway. Y

Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope

[packeteer]

One thing you are forgetting is that the market price of any product sold is nto determined by the cost to produce it. Bigger cars are more expensive not becuase they cost more. Bigger cars are more expensive because people are willing to pay more. This is a key sublety that many people dont understand. If people were willing to pay more for electric cars then the car companies would make them. The sad fact though is that much of the cars sold today are all about machoism and socioeconomic status. An electric car says "hippie who gives a damn about the environment" aka a "loser for showing weakness by caring" to many of the peers of car buyers.

who stands to lose the most?

[zogger]

Electric cars can be quite fast. Electric motors have all their torque starting at one rpm and it just goes on from there. There isn't a fuel engine made that can compare horsepower to horsepower down where the rubber meets the road with an electric motor. People who managed to *lease* an EV1 loved them (EV1's were leased, not sold for the most part), they tried their darndest to get GM to sell them at end of lease and GM just took them away and crushed them while they were still in perfect working order. Read up on it, or actually go see that movie in the article, that is what this is all about.

Electric cars are a threat to auto makers because there is much less stuff to break and they are simpler to make (think about that one for a long time, it is a critical part of the equation), and they are a threat to governments because there is no way to apply the road fuel tax to them (short of the GPS tracking deal they just started in oregon). You can theoretically own an electric vehicle, own some solar panels, and eventually be driving for pretty darn cheap per mile. Many people are happily doing that today, proving it is possible and can fill a lot of niche driving. As to range,50-100 miles on a charge is doable *now*, which would handle just millions of commuter profiles, that is *easily* extended and handled by having an additional tow behind trailer with a fuel burning generator in it for trips, which would then morph your ride "on demand" into a hybrid vehicle..

    Pure electric cars are a clear cut example of what is called "disruptive technology" that threatens big auto, big oil and big government. A lot of big money and big juice there that doesn't want that sort of threat, yes? That is why electric cars "failed",not that they don't work or can't be built in mass productyion style, of course they can,but they were never offered in the first place.

    When is the last time you saw a pure electric car at a normal mainstream dealer *for sale*? I'm an old gear head,and I have *never* seen one for sale, never. I have seen anything and everything else under the sun with an engine that moves for sale, the only electric "car" I ever saw for sale was a golf cart, not a real car. I have seen a few low production prototypes that people hand built, and you were able to buy them used that way as one or two-offs,but that's it, nothing mass produced.

They say "there is no market", well it is a self fullfilling prophecy if you never even try to sell them.

For there to be Alternatives to Fossil Feuls

[Zombie Ryushu]

The technology that replaces the Gasoline Engine has to be of devistating power. It has to deliver far more power than Conventional Internal Combustion Engines can. Such engines have to be able to push ~300 MPH and be like dangerous for Americans to buy them.
That is what is missing. They have to have devistatingly destructive power, while being Eco friendly.

$10K?

[Ruff_ilb]

Where's that information coming from?

From the site:

"The interesting thing about the EXAR-1 was, that the pictures never did the car justice. When seen in person, the car was as beautiful as any foreigh exotic costing 7 or 8 times more; as well as the fact, that the EXAR-1 sported advances that even the most expensive automobiles in the world would not have for many years in the future."

"Mr. Ramirez, actually built an electric automobile, making sure that details, such as matching ring and pinion gears to tire and wheel size for optimum operation, were implemented, regardless of cost."

"Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company provided special tires developed expermintal future characteristics to be implemented into the design of the EXAR-1.

"Bell Helicoptor and Ling Tempco Vaught Aerospace engineers provided structural design and metalurgical analysis. 4130 chromally steel would be used as the roll cage to protect passengers and provide a body on frame,for inexpensive repair and maintance."

Doesn't sound cheap to me...

As for development/production costs:

"Pietro Frua provided the body design while the Department of Transportation cooperated in technical recommendations and asistance in overall safety design and new materials analysis...suffice to say that Ramirez built an electric automobile for approximately $18 million dollars, that General Motors (with government funding assistance, etc.) could not do for $360 million dollars..."

It seems pretty unlikely that they could produce such a car in large numbers for 10,000 USD each.

But ok, even granting the claim that they could, you have to account for inflation. Using a little calculator found here (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), $10,000 US in 1970 is approximately equal to $50379.13 US in 2005. That's not exactly conveniently priced, by a long shot.

Re:Who killed the electric car?

[RedWizzard]

I would think (on the average) more yahoos are buying the car with more power and driving recklessly and that this will outweigh the event of being able to accelerate away from an accident. (Not that I'm saying this a valid reason to raise insurance rates on these cars - drivers shouldn't be presumed guilty before an accident.)

I suspect that's the justification for those premiums though. But insurance companies are usually pretty rigorous with their statistics so I think more powerful cars statistically do have more or more serious accidents.

About that Corn

[TubeSteak]

The ethanol situation is not nearly as simple as "use corn".

As it stands, the US Gov't pays farmers not to plant fields, subsidizes the farmland that is planted, and buys up excess product to keep prices up. This practice isn't limited to corn, most independant/corporate farmers recieve gov't handouts.

Ontop of that, the Feds have tariffs to keep the domestic price of ethanol up, because ethanol production (like farming) is heavily subsidized and not exactly profitable.

The entire market that is/would be involved in large-scale ethanol production is heavily skewed because of subsidies. The cheapest route would be to import ethanol from places where it is cheap.

On a side note: Why do SUVs belong in museums?
Like trucks and the TUV (Truck-UV), they fill an important niche.
The SUV is just a vehicle, maybe your problem is with the people who drive them.

Re:About that Corn

[maxpublic]

That's because using corn for ethanol production is a net energy loser. You invest more energy in producing the ethanol than you ever get out of it, especially after you factor in transportation costs to distribution centers (i.e., gas stations).

Ethanol can only be efficiently produced from very high-energy crops like sugar beets - or even better, sugar cane. Unfortunately most of the land that's being used to grow corn doesn't do very well growing sugar beets, and can't be used to grow sugar cane at all. In fact, the places best suited for both of these crops are in central and south America. That is, places where there aren't any American farmers, nor any representatives in Congress.

You ever wonder why corn syrup is used as a sugar substitute in so many things, like, for instance, cola drinks? Because Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, outright bans the import of sugar past a certain allowed tonnage each and every year. The sole reason for doing so is to support corn farmers, who'd otherwise lose the corn syrup business to sugar cane farmers in other countries (it takes far less sugar to make something taste sweet than it does corn syrup, and sugar tastes better than corn syrup). It makes no economic sense for the rest of the country, but there you have it - your tax dollars at work in a government protection racket.

These same farmers push for corn-derived ethanol despite the fact that it can never be efficient, nor can it ever be economical for the rest of us - those of us who aren't corn farmers. Ethanol from corn is a bust, but don't expect the government to ever admit to that, or to admit that the only truly productive ethanol will come from places like central or south America, or Hawaii, or perhaps southern Florida. Too many Congresscritters would be out of a job if they ever admitted to that.

Max

efficancy not the REAL point

[schweini]

I'm so sick and tired of that argument, every time it pops up in electric car or hydrogen economy related articles.
as i see it, we should still be changing to electric cars or hydrogen based ones, even if it produces more nasty stuff at the beginning, if you take the power plants into consideration (which is not even proven at this point, because of efficancy differences)
the really important thing is to change the energy-transmitting infrastructure - by changing it from fossil fuels to hydrogen or electricity, we create another level of abstraction (to use programmer's speak), and we can tackle the other parts later (someday, in spite of the old joke that fusion is always only a couple of years away, it will arrive). there are zillions of ways to produce electricity, but only one way to "produce" normal gasoline (i love the idea of bio-petrol, but i think it's more of a temporary crutch than a real solution). with electric or hydrogen based cars, we'd open the energy producing market to a broader competition, so to speak.
it's kind of like developing cross-platform applications. it allows you to switch the underlying layers depending on your needs.
but right now, we have this massive monolithic problem that the whole infrastructure, from the moment the oil is pumped out, upto the moment the gas explodes in your cylinders, is extremly unflexibly based on fossil fuels. so the only reasonable way out of this is the good old 'divide & conquer', IMHO.

Re:Riiiiiight

[HoboMaster]

I don't really give a fuck about gas prices. In fact, I work for an oil company, so there's a minimum of ideological fervor on my part. I just couldn't see how you went from a small electric car to a big SUV, especially seeing as how you highlighted how terrible the SUV's gas mileage was in your earlier post. You know, there are in-betweens. For example, my mom drives a Honda Element, which does a pretty good job of towing our trailer while still getting mid-to-high 20s gas mileage. I'm not criticizing your choice of car, I was just responding to your own criticisms. You made it sound like since you couldn't get the EV1, you had no choice but to end up in an SUV, whereas there are plenty of other choices out there.

You have some apples and some oranges.

[raehl]

Do you think it has taken us 50 years to get a car to go supposedly 40mpg?

The *SAME* car? No - the problem is that the American consumer will pay more for a car that is heavier (safer) and has more features/trunk space/acceleration/handling/etc than they will a car that has the weight, trunk space, acceleration and handling of a car from the 1950's that gets 80 MPG.

We have gotten REMARKABLY more efficient with engines in the past 50 years. We just spend that efficiency on things OTHER than MPG because that's what the consumer wants.

When I drove the EV1. . .

[basotl]

Back in '99 I drove an EV 1 a bit. I found it to be very "futuristic feeling". It also had great acceleration and handeling. My only holdbacks were passenger/baggage space and distance. I couldn't even really drive the thing to work and back without a charge. If I needed to carry a few things there was no space for it. There were many factors that lead to the collapse of the EV1 and all are debateble. Al I can say is, that I as a consumer would only buy an electric car under a few circumstances. 1. Improved range. 2. Quick charging 3. Improved cargo/passenger space. 4. Wide infastructure of charging units in place. I don't fore see any of those factors happening soon. I can sooner imagine fuel cell and hybrid technology further advancing. Heck the US would probabily start refining oil shale before it built an infrastructure of charging stations.

Open Source GNU-Car

[barfomar]

Is the technology behind the EV1 a secret?
Why not create a set of plans based on the Open Source model that could be used to bypass GM like FOSS bypasses Micro$oft.
Eventually, a RedHat will come along and produce the hardware for the masses.

It may not look sexy like a Jaguar, but it will get you there.

Thanks for posting

[Ogemaniac]

You clearly have a view from the inside. I get pretty tired of all the "big evil corporations are holding back THE MAN" posts around this place.

By and large, corporations are full of good people who understand that making money ultimately comes from pleasing your customers. If GM dropped the electric car idea, it is not for some nefarious reason, but because the things just couldn't provide a competitive balance of brice and performance at the time. It is also ludicrious to claim that "Big Oil" and the car companies are not pouring tons of R&D into alternative fuels and transporation. On the contrary, they are putting in as much as anyone. I think this myth comes from the mistaken belief that companies only think about the short-term. Not only does a basic understanding of markets dispel this (a stock price is the value of ALL future profits), but so would the experience of actually working in any high-tech company. In my company, I work in an sub-group where product life cycles are extremely short. Yet we are routinely projecting potential revenues a decade or more into the future, and betting on products that will produce no revenue for several years.

Re:Riiiiiight

[Alioth]

Just a curiosity: why not get a small, fun to drive car for the 99% of the time you're the sole occupant of the vehicle, and rent an SUV for those rare occasions you need to carry 6 people and haul a trailer?

$1 billion dollars to prove a point?

[bigtrike]

GM spent about $1 billion in R&D to develop this. Seems a bit expensive to prove a point.